What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

How one can hold a world view dogma that categorically throws out information like this:

http://www.nwf.org/Eco-Schools-USA/Become-an-Eco-School/Pathways/Climate-Change/Facts.aspx

never ceases to amaze me.

Because I love my grandkids, what really gets to me is this quoted paragraph from the reference article above that goes way beyond just having enough fresh water everywhere it's needed: "The United States is the second largest contributor to CO2 in our atmosphere, though it is home to just 4.4 percent of the world’s population. If everyone in the world lived the way people do in the U.S., it would take four Earths to provide enough resources for everyone."

I got my question answered way back...so..Moderator..if you want to close this..won't hurt my feelings none.

Or..leave it open to discussions of Global Climate change..and I am good with that too. I'm not really learning much..but it keeps some of the folks off the streets.

In that vein..I am of the opinion that it most likely will never been proven that the cycles have been forever, but I am pretty certain that the people who are being forced from homes due to rising sea levels and the high paid engineers in places the world over that see the rising water levels as one of the biggest threats to how things are now...are looking for a way to bring this under control. I am also pretty confident that if those that are so willing to argue 'No Such Thing' would be singing a different tune if they were the ones looking at loss. Funny how the nearer the danger, how ones ideas change.

Same/same the foolish remarks made about people in California after I posed the question. How many of the smart fingered group would be laughin and carryin on if they were the ones in flooded cars and buildings or waiting to be rescued. Not so funny then.


Gary Haupt

pnichols,

You meaning the vast climate changes that have occurred on the planet Earth just like much of the earth being a sub-tropical swamp like climate and then much of it covered with very thick ice glaciers and over and over! Widen your horizons and do the research and it's eye opening. BTW, Funny that MAN was not even on earth then or was a very tiny fraction of whats on it now and surely didn't have coal fired powerplants or dino engined vehicles or big factories etc. How could it have even happened then? However, I wasn't there then to wittness such and I admit it! Bet you weren't either!

westend, you are certainly able to have your opinions too but that's very different than those with such constantly trying to drive their personal opinions down everyone's throat in every way possible and constantly done over and over and usually by changing the actual topic of discussion at hand not only on this forum but in most other conversations, forums, and meetings.

I have been on this forum alone for way over 10 years and other forums even longer and have even been a mod on several of them. GW is one subject intervene that's always pervasive by a few members and posters and spewed over and over. Also, I have held several town meetings and automotive corporate meetings over the years and it even infiltrates those until they are brought back to order by a stiff hand. It's up to the mods on this forum though and some do and some do not.

Respecting another's right to have an opinion is one thing and yielding to another's personal opinions is quite another thing. That is called "a personal agenda thrust upon others" as it's being forced upon another and almost always off topic! Very far from respecting another's right to have an personal opinion.

Enjoy your own opinions and I will mine also!

travelnutz wrote:
westend,

First of all, the OP's thread was about the volume of water that 10 trillions of gallons is really like. Not "climate science"! GW diehards always try to change any of these type of threads to "The sky is falling" because humans are being humans and trying to better their lives whereever they live. It gets SO old!

First--I didn't bring up the topic, just commented on it.
Second---I apologized for any of my posts on anthropomorphic added climate change since most of the membership here either resists it, totally, or makes snide comments. There is no intelligent discussion to be had.
Third---I invited anyone that wished to discuss climate change to send me a PM.
Lastly, you have an opinion about climate and so do I. I'm not telling you that your's is "so old". I'd like the same respect.

The world is now in unprecedented times. At no time in the past has Earth's population been this large and this energy intensive and as such, exposing the Earth to so much human generated underground, surface, and atmospheric pollution. Hence, equating "past natural weather patterns" to what the weather will do in the future makes no sense if one can at all connect weather patterns to the effects from these three areas of pollution.

One cannot sanely deny that current measurements showing ever increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere - over what core samples show CO2 amounts were for the past hundreds of thousands of years - isn't going to have some "unnatural and unprecedented" effects ... good or bad. To me it makes common sense (in addition to scientific sense) that the effects of more of the sun's heat getting trapped under this unnatural CO2 blanket has got to give rise to the "unprecedented and bad" effect of average Earth surface temperatures going higher.

Following logic, I for one blame the high population - living the way it does - for this increase in average Earth surface temperatures. How can weather patterns in the future not be affected by these new higher temperatures?

travelnutz,

Well said!

~Rick

westend,

First of all, the OP's thread was about the volume of water that 10 trillions of gallons is really like. Not "climate science"! GW diehards always try to change any of these type of threads to "The sky is falling" because humans are being humans and trying to better their lives whereever they live. It gets SO old!

I'm all for greatly lowering pollution everywhere where it's truely productive and economically feasible and sensible but it must be done and balanced against real life, living, and the conditions it causes, plus costs involved to make such insignificant gains or even no gain at all. So far, most efforts have been and proven to be simply robbing Peter to pay Paul and have made virtually no real gains at all world wide!

Coal/dino burning can be very environmentally clean and safe but trying to eliminate the use of coal or dino is not the way as it's simply burying your head in the sand as usual rather than conquering the issues as should be done. Making one sector/area/nation feel good while shoving the downside down the throat of other sectors/areas/nations is certainly not the way either. The USA does NOT control what or how any other country or people live or pollute the air, land, or sea!

Sun and wind energy is SO far yet from being reliable and yet comes at an extreme cost to build, maintain, and replace for so little output. Needs so much more development! Nuclear power is by far the most efficient and less costly per KW produced over it's plant lifetime but it also has possible polluting waste that has to be used/consumed before it's clean too. Much more work needs to be done on that front also! Not impossible!

Climate science is not just for a few centuries but really should include 2-6 billions of years of known and proven happenings of our planet Earth as history almost always repeats itself over and over just like our planet's long billions of years history has so clearly shown! The planet Earth is not likely to be going anywhere soon or even billions of years from now nor will the sun cease to shine or rain cease from falling or plant life, insect life, animal life, or the oceans and land disappear from the planet. Climate change is and always has been going on for billions of years now and man can only have a tiny miniscule effect at most on it's true vastness.

westend wrote:
At this point, I'm going to apologise to the membership here for trying to discuss climate science. I'm glad that CA is seeing the renewal of their water resources and hope there is a minimum of damage in the process.

If anyone would like to discuss climate science with me, they can reach me through PM.

Reached that point pages back.
Glad you've seen the light.

At this point, I'm going to apologise to the membership here for trying to discuss climate science. I'm glad that CA is seeing the renewal of their water resources and hope there is a minimum of damage in the process.

If anyone would like to discuss climate science with me, they can reach me through PM.

CO2 is everywhere naturally and we surely could cut down on the CO2 in the air if all 8.5 billion people on the planet would just stop breathing!